Appeal No. 1998-2933
Application 08/439,082
Stouffer. Stouffer is applied as showing that a Manchester
code was well known in the prior art.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 8) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the Examiner's Answer (Paper
No. 16) (pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the
Examiner's position, and to the Brief (Paper No. 15) (pages
referred to as "Br__") and the Reply Brief (Paper No. 17)
(pages referred to as "RBr__") for a statement of Appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
The dependent claims have been argued to stand or fall
together with their respective independent claims (Br5). The
Examiner states that Applicant has not addressed claims 6, 11,
and 21 in detail, but traverses the rejection for reasons
similar to those provided with respect to claim 1; therefore,
the Examiner does not address Appellant's comments regarding
claims 6, 11, and 21 (EA13). Because of the differences in
claim scope among independent claims 1, 6, 11, and 21, they
cannot stand together, so we address them separately.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007